Those were both valid "reasonable doubts."
I din't think you lacked the intelligence to grasp that.
I believed he was innocent based on what I know about his character. The accusations didn't fit. Proving if beyond a reasonable doubt was another thing.
The job of his defense was to create one or more reasonable doubts. "She made it up" and "she misidentified him" were both reasonable theories supported by evidence -- along with an inadequate investigation, the attempt by the prosecution to misrepresent the DNA evidence, etc.
The charges should never have been brought..
I never vacillated on anything.
No one had to prove he was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not how the courts work.
I don’t think it was reasonably in doubt that you guys were being pitchfork carrying dipshits, that you were beholden to Illini homers masquerading as legal analysts, etc. so no issue with that from me.
I suppose there’s “reasonable doubt” whether PAMan wasn’t smart enough to understand what I was saying, or if he was and continues to just lie about what I was saying. Fair enough.
Yes, you absolutely did vacillate multiple times throughout the case. You were sure it was made up. Then you were sure it was Arterio Morris. Whatever the Illini homers masquerading as legal analysts told you to believe that day. Pretend away if it makes you feel better.